Harry Reid is mad that Republicans didn't obstruct his bill

quote:

---

The move not only guarantees a lengthy debate over Democratic efforts to limit the First Amendment, but it also limits the amount of time left for debates over other doomed measures on gender pay equality and the minimum wage, which were intended to frame the coming elections for Democrats as they defend their Senate majority.

---

quote:

---

Harry Reid

---

quote:

---

trying to "stall" the Senate,

---

quote:

---

he never intended for the campaign finance amendment by Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., to go to a real floor debate.

---

quote:

---

After all his complaints about Republican obstruction this year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid expressed frustration last night after Republicans helped guarantee a floor vote on a measure he supports.

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

don't think Pelosi is a proven pederast.

---

quote:

---

So how long is this floor debate supposed to go on?

---

quote:

---

Perhaps the modern Senate’s defining feature is the potential difficulty of reaching a final vote on a matter. Most questions that the Senate considers – from a motion to proceed to a bill, to each amendment, to the bill itself – are not subject to any debate limit. Simply put, Senate rules provide no way for a simple numerical majority to cut off or otherwise impose a debate limit and move to a final vote. As a result, Senators can effectively wage (or threaten to wage) a filibuster – in effect, insist on extended debate in order to delay or prevent a final vote on most amendments, bills, or other motions.

In addition, Senate rules provide few options to comprehensively limit the amendments proposed to a bill. Unlike the House, for example, under most circumstances amendments in the Senate need not be germane, and amendments sometimes involve subject matter unrelated to the bill in question. This can lead to a much more wide-ranging and less predictable floor debate than typically occurs in the House.

Senate Rule XXII, often called the cloture rule, does allow a supermajority to limit debate on a bill, amendment, or motion; in addition, in the case of a bill, cloture limits the amendments that can be offered. Supporters of, for instance, a bill under floor consideration can file a cloture motion, signed by at least 16 Senators. Two days of session later, Senators vote on the cloture motion. If three-fifths – usually 60 Senators – agree, then further consideration of the bill is limited to 30 hours, during which only amendments from a pre-specified list of germane ones can be offered. After this final period of consideration, the Senate will take a final vote on the bill. This final vote requires only a simple majority for approval. But because a cloture process is often required to end debate on a bill, then the bill first must garner the support of a three-fifths supermajority. All told, this process of reaching a final vote on a bill can require about a week of Senate floor time to complete.

Overall, these rules and practices governing floor debate and amending in the Senate provide significant leverage to each individual Senator. But rather than relying on the formal rules like cloture, frequently the Senate can more effectively act using unanimous consent agreements. Such an agreement is a structured plan for limiting debate and amending – a plan that can be tailored to each bill that comes to the floor (somewhat akin to a special rule in the House). Through the use of these agreements, the details of which all Senators have agreed upon, the Senate can more effectively process its business while protecting the procedural rights of each of its members.

---